OSWALD IN THE DOORWAY- the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign by Ralph Cinque

www.oswald-innocent.com

Saturday, November 5, 2016

The Idiot Backes has ventured forth with a reply, while Brian Pete continues to ponder what to say about his "1 set underwear" fiasco. And, Backes thinks he's got a neat, tidy explanation for everything. We'll see.First, the Idiot claims that I think I see a difference between the socks here, the implication being that there is no difference.

Then, amazingly, he makes a comparison to the Titanic, saying that there were two of them, but neither one sank? Based on what, Backes? I'm not saying that there are conflicting images of the Titanic, so what does that even mean?Then, he faults me for not sizing bpete's image correctly. But, Brian has it set so that you can't save his images; so all I can do is a print-screen. And, his version of the document is larger than the screen. And, that's why I can only post partial images of it. Then, to explain 7 box stacks at the TSBD, he came up with this: I worked in a school book depository. Books were often stacked this high. Why? Because they were hardcover textbooks and not softcover, trade sized, comic books.

The TSBD distributed mostly Dick and Jane readers for little kids; they were not "hardcover textbooks." I thought everybody and his brother knew that. And, I don't believe for one second that heavy, hardcover textbooks were stored 7 boxes high either.So, just to be clear: I am calling you a liar, Backes: a bold-faced, dastardly liar. They Property Clerk has to know where artifacts pertaining to a case are, and why they came into the possession of the police.That pertains to the statement at the bottom of the form, but how does it explain why Ruby's set of underwear came into the possession of the police? Next, the Idiot claims to know that the DPD property invoice form had carbon paper between different colored sheets so that you automatically made multiple copies when you typed it. The carbon paper was dirty, volatile, and would easily smear, and the copies were never that clean. Plus, they would tell you to press harder when you were writing in order to impress through all the copies, but you could hardly do that with a typewriter, and the result was, that the print would come out quite faint on the copies. So, if that pink one is a carbon copy, it came out mighty good. But, let's look at the white one that Backes found:

According to Backes, there was only 1 white one, which was the original, and then the copies were pink, yellow, and green. Look at the stamp on the bottom, Received by M Bullard on 12/3/63. And it's signed by BL somebody and then BJ Smith. So, you see all that. So, why don't we see it on bpete's white form?

Where's the stamp, Backes? It's the white version of the form, the original, just like you put up. Except, yours has the stamp, and bpete's doesn't. That stamp was added to the form on December 3, 1963 which was just 8 days after the form was created. Also, yours has handwriting beneath Ruby's name and address as the bottom, and bpete's doesn't. Also, the checkmarks on the left are missing from bpete's form. Now, there was only 1 white form, right? That's what you said: a white original and then pink, yellow, and green copies. So, how come we have two disparate white forms? They were usually four copies made, a black and white original and a pink, yellow and green copy. So, there was a black and white original? Why not just say white since on all of them the typing and the printing was black? But, there was just one white one right? So, why do we seem to have two different versions of the white copy? Not two Titanics, but two different versions of the white copy. Well, you consult with Brian Pete and see if you can come up with a plausible explanation for this.And I tell you, they must have had some complicated system there for storing prisoner belongings at the DPD. All these bins designated by letters. For instance, some of Ruby's stuff was stored in Bin N-18, although that got corrected from Bin N-30. Doesn't that imply that they had N Bins from N1 to N30, at least? Then, they stored his envelope in Bin G25, so I presume they had G Bins numbering from 1 to 30 too. And, if they had G and N bins, then they probably had A, B, C, etc. bins going at least to N, and with 30 apiece, at least. That's a lot of fuckin' bins. It sounds like something out of The Cat in the Hat. So, they were taking every stitch of clothing from their detainees upon arrival and storing them in bins. Did they wash the dirty underwear before putting it in the bin, or did they just plop it in there? And then they had to go to the various bins to retrieve the underwear and other clothing when it was time to release or transfer the prisoner, and it begs the question: why were they doing all this in the first place? For what purpose? Why couldn't they just leave the prisoner in his original underwear? How would that have hurt anything? Why did they have to replace his underwear with police-approved underwear for the one day that he was there (in Ruby's case)? Of course, all of this makes perfect sense to Backes because, you see, he used to work as the underwear collector at a police department.